* Note: I have included the entire Breitbart article below the hotair article.  
Breitbart rightly tells us that both Democrats and Republicans are able to be compromised and able to cheat regarding foreign campaign donations not just Obama. - W.E.


Most Republicans recall the Doodad Pro controversy from almost exactly four years ago, where Team Obama campaign websites turned off credit card security checks that allowed fraudulent and foreign donations to flow into the campaign.  Could that be happening again?  According to a new independent report from the Government Accountability Institute and reported by Breitbart, not only is it actually happening again — it’s actually gotten worse. 

A bundler for Barack Obama has set up a shady website operation to collect donations to the campaign, but it’s based in Shanghai, and the bundler has ties to the Chinese government:
In an explosive report set to send shockwaves through official Washington, the Government Accountability Institute (GAI) released a 108-page GAI investigation into the threat of foreign and fraudulent Internet campaign donations in U.S. federal elections (visit campaignfundingrisks.com to download the full report).
Breitbart News obtained an advance copy of the bombshell report which reveals that the Obama.com website is not owned by the president’s campaign but rather by Obama bundler Robert Roche, a U.S. citizen living in Shanghai, China. Roche is the chairman of a Chinese infomercial company, Acorn International, with ties to state-controlled banks that allow it to “gain revenue through credit card transactions with Chinese banks.”
There’s more.
The unusual Obama.com website redirects traffic directly to a donation page on the Obama campaign’s official website, my.barackobama.com, which does not require donors tob enter their credit card security code (known as the CVV code), thereby increasing the likelihood of foreign or fraudulent donations. The website is managed by a small web development firm, Wicked Global, in Maine. One of Wicked Global’s employees, Greg Dorr, lists on his LinkedIn page his additional employment with Peace Action Maine and Maine Voices for Palestinian Rights. According to the GAI report, 68 percent of all Internet traffic to Obama.com comes from foreign visitors.
GAI notes that the connections between the bundler and the Beijing regime come through China’s state-run media:
Obama.com Purchased By An Obama Bundler In Shanghai, China With Questionable Business Ties to State-Run Chinese Enterprises: In 2008, Obama.com was purchased by an Obama fundraiser living in Shanghai, China, whose business is heavily dependent on relationships with Chinese state-run television and other state-owned entities. (see page 62)
And not surprisingly under these circumstances, more than two-thirds of all traffic to Obama.com comes from outside the US:
68% Of Traffic To Anonymously Registered Obama.com Is Foreign: According to industry leading web analytics site Markosweb, an anonymously registered redirect site (Obama.com) features 68 % foreign traffic. Starting in December 2011, the site was linked to a specific donation page on the official BarackObama.com campaign website for ten months. The page loaded a tracking number, 634930, into a space on the website labeled “who encouraged you to make this donation.” That tracking number is embedded in the source code for Obama.com and is associated with the Obama Victory Fund. In early September 2012, the page began redirecting to the standard Obama Victory Fund donation page
Breitbart promises more about the China connection later, but let’s take a look at the domestic side of Doodad Pro II: Chinese Boogaloo. According to the executive summary of the report, Team Obama disabled the security processes for credit-card transactions designed to detect fraud and other illegal activity — but only on contributions.  Those security protocols are fully engaged for merchandise purchases:
Obama Campaign Lacks the Industry-Standard Level Of Credit Card Security For Donations, But Uses It For Merchandise Purchases: To purchase Obama campaign merchandise, the campaign requires buyers to enter their credit card CVV security code, but does not require the credit card security code to be entered when making an online campaign donation (see page 60). By GAI’s estimates, the Obama campaign’s failure to utilize industry-standard protections potentially costs the campaign millions in extra processing fees. (see pages 35 and 59)
There is no other conclusion to reach but that this decision was deliberate, especially since it became an issue just before the 2008 election.  The Washington Post reported on it, at least for a brief time, and it became a topic of some interest among Republicans in Congress.  Even if one was inclined to chalk it up to error by an inexperienced campaign in 2008, that excuse no longer applies in 2012 — especially not when the campaign seems more concerned about fraud in merchandise sales, which would cost them more in reversals (product costs) than returned donations would.
Our Salem colleague Katie Pavlich has a great analysis of the report:
OFA seems to be taking advantage of a “foreign donor loophole” by not using CVV on their campaign donation page. When you donate online to the Obama campaign using a credit card, the contribution webpage does not require donors to enter a secure CVV number (also known as CSC, CVV2 or CVN), the three-digit securing code on the back of credit cards. This code, although not 100 percent effective, is used to ensure a person making a purchase physically possesses the card. According to the report, 90 percent of e-commerce and 19 of the 20 largest charities in the United States use a CVV code, making its use standard industry practice in order to prevent fraud. Another anti-fraud security measure includes software, better known as an Address Verification System, to verify a donor’s address matches the address on file with the credit card company. The investigation could not determine whether OFA is using this type of software to prevent fraudulent or illegal donations.
Because of the lack of a CVV code requirement, the door is opened for OFA to accept robo-donations, or in other words, large numbers of small and automatic donations made online to evade FEC reporting requirements. Although it isn’t illegal to decline the use of a secure CVV credit card code for campaign donations, it is illegal to accept campaign donations from foreign sources. Campaigns are required under criminal code not to solicit, accept or receive foreign donations in any amount. The Federal Elections Commission doesn’t require campaigns to disclose the names of donors making contributions of less than $200 unless audited. In addition, FEC rules don’t require campaigns to keep records of those giving less than $50. These rules combined with the lack of a CVV numbers make it easy for campaigns to get away with taking foreign donations. …
As of September 26, 2012, the Obama campaign has raised $271,327,755 in contributions under $200 for the 2012 cycle. In 2008, it was $335,139,233. The Romney campaign has raised just $58,456,968 in contributions under $200 and has all CVV and online security measures in place. In total, the Obama campaign raised $500 million online in 2008 with $335 million in contributions–more than half–falling under the $200 reporting requirement. Obama has raised more online funds than any campaign in history. ….
In this situation, the foreign donation problem coming from online sources can be solved and President Obama’s promise of transparency can be kept in one click by enabling all security protections and releasing the names and records on all transactions under $200 to verify Obama for America is a clean campaign operating within FEC law.
Katie drills deeply into this report, and demonstrates that this is no accident.  Be sure to read her whole post.
Update: Speaking of Chinese state media, members of Congress have begun pointing to one Chinese telecom as a threat to national security:
According to CBS, U.S. officials believe Huawei could “intercept high-level communications, gather intelligence, wage cyber war, and shut down or disrupt critical services” in the United States on China’s behalf.
While there is no “hard evidence” for these claims, according to CBS, the possibility has led the Obama administration to interfere with Huawei’s efforts to expand in the United States.
In one case, federal officials convinced Sprint not to sign a $5 billion contract with the company to build a 4G wireless network, CBS reported.
Huawei already maintains a “handful” of networks in rural America, according to CBS, but is trying to gain a bigger foothold with an “army of lobbyists and public relations firms.”
That’s just a reminder of the stakes involved.


The Internet and social media sites like Facebook and Twitter have democratized elections, made the world more interconnected, and allowed the velocity of information to be faster than ever before. 

But an extensive eight-month investigation by the Government Accountability Institute (GAI) released on Monday found these same forces can also be the greatest threat to America’s sovereignty (visit campaignfundingrisks.com to download the full report). These technologies allow foreign donors to anonymously circumvent U.S. campaign finance laws and directly influence elections by donating repeatedly to candidates. 
The 108-page GAI report found nearly half of Congress, both political parties and presidential candidates, and third-party fundraising groups that funnel money to political parties and candidates were vulnerable to fraudulent and foreign donations. This is a bipartisan problem potentially impacting all levels of government, as those whose organizations were found to have been vulnerable include President Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the Republican National Committee (RNC), and third-party groups like ActBlue, which funnels money to progressive politicians.  
And the report found that the website Obama.com, which is not owned by President Barack Obama's campaign but redirects to the campaign's official donation page, may make the Obama campaign the most susceptible to illicit foreign donations. Obama.com is connected to an Obama campaign bundler, Robert Roche, who is from Chicago but now lives and co-founded a corporation in China. Roche has direct ties to China's state-owned banking industry. 
Peter Schweizer, president of GAI, told Breitbart News the ease with which foreigners could donate to American candidates puts America’s sovereignty in peril. 
“Foreign donations mean that we no longer make our election decisions anymore,” Schweizer told Breitbart News.
Schweizer said he had initially thought “we would find some bloggers overseas with motivation to support a presidential candidate encouraging people to make donations,” but he was “very surprised” by the study’s findings, including how easy it was for foreigners to use "robo-donation" programs that allow foreigners to potentially make thousands of small-dollar, fraudulent and automated donations to candidates. 
Schweizer said he “never thought” the GAI would find mysterious redirect sites like Obama.com and was “surprised how little security is required to receive online donations.”
“We are basically trusting political consultants and fundraisers to do the right thing when no one is looking,” Schweizer said. 
The report found nearly half of Congress was vulnerable to fraudulent and foreign directions. Of the 446 House and Senate members who have an online donation page, 47.3% do not require the Card Verification Value (CVV), which is the three or four-digit security code on the back of credit cards, for internet donations. Those in Congress who are vulnerable to foreign donations can be seen at www.CampaignFundingRisks.com.
“Candidates appear content with lax security, negligently inviting foreign or fraudulent cash into their campaign,” the report notes.
And the Obama campaign seems to be the most content with the "lax security." 
The FEC requires campaigns to make their “best efforts” to collect identifying information on all contributors who donate more than $50.30 and even more specific information, such as the donor’s occupation and employer, for donations over $200. 
As the report notes, donations less than $50, though, fall under the “Pass-the-Hat” rule, which means campaigns can report all such donations under a lump sum and do not have to make their “best efforts” to collecting information on these small-dollar donors. 
Because foreigners can exploit the “Pass-the-Hat” rule, the report  found that “any campaign not using these industry-standard security tools is increasing its costs and unnecessarily increasing the risk of at least two types of potential fraud":
The Fraudulent High Dollar Donor(s): –the fraudulent high dollar donor is politically motivated and is seeking to avoid detection by making numerous donations below the $200 dollar threshold, over which their donation must be identified; they may seek to exceed campaign donation limits. 
The Unintentional Fraudster –a foreign national who is unaware of U.S. election laws but sympathetic to the campaign. Such an individual can easily end up on a campaign donation page. Given that a number of campaigns list the U.S. donation laws in an inconspicuous place on the “donate” page, it is easy to see how illegal donations can be made with no malicious intent. 
And the Obama campaign is most vulnerable to both types of fraudsters. 
For example, the study found “the Obama campaign regularly and aggressively posts solicitations for donations and campaign memorabilia on Facebook,” and “the campaign does not make clear in these postings that only U.S. citizens or permanent residents are allowed to contribute.” Fundraising solicitations from the Obama campaign have gone out to foreigners, asking them to contribute in amounts of less than $200. Similar solicitations have been posted in Arabic, Taiwanese, and Chinese on Facebook and on Middle Eastern and Asian websites. 
Even though the Obama campaign is touted for its technological sophistication and sites run by top Obama technology advisers use the “CVV” feature, the Obama campaign itself does not use the “CVV” feature on its donation pages -- even though it does use the feature on the merchandise pages where it sells campaign merchandise. 
This means someone who donates $2,500 to the campaign online has to go through less security than someone who goes online to buy an Obama campaign mug. 
“This creates a security risk that is compounded by the considerable foreign interest in President Obama’s political history, personal story, and views,” the report notes. 
And according to the study, BarackObama.com, the campaign’s main website, receives approximately 43% of its traffic from foreign IP addresses.
In addition, popular websites touting Obama’s campaign and linking to its donation page have been found in places like China, Azerbaijan, Vietnam, the Netherlands, Italy, Japan, Norway, Egypt, Hong Kong, and South Korea.
The report notes that not using the CVV feature “is quite possibly costing the campaign millions of dollars in additional fees,” but the campaign is still not using it. Perhaps this is so because the Obama campaign has benefited from donations slipping through the cracks in the past. 
In 2008, the report discovered that an individual using the name “Doodad Pro” made at least 791 contributions totaling $19,065 to the Obama campaign while others named “Good Will,” “Test Person” from “Some Place, UT,” “gjtjtjtjtjtjr, AP,” and “QWERTTYYU” also contributed to the campaign. 
The most interesting -- or suspicious -- site is Obama.com, which the campaign strangely does not own. According to the report, nearly 68% of internet traffic to Obama.com comes from foreign locations. And the website is connected to Robert Roche, who lives in China and co-founded a Chinese company called Acorn International. Roche, the report found, made 19 visits to the White House since 2009, including being seated at the head table during a State dinner with Chinese president Hu Jintao in 2011. 
Unlike the Obama campaign, the Romney campaign website uses the "CVV" feature but it is not without vulnerabilities.
For instance, Romney's campaign also has Facebook and Twitter accounts in Arabic that give off the impression they are associated with the Romney campaign. These accounts link to the Romney campaign’s page and are presumably for a foreign audience. 
In addition, the report found some of Romney’s top bundlers, like Akin Gump's Tom Loeffler, have lobbied for foreign governments like Saudi Arabia. 
Since 1980, Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos, the Chinese government, powerful Indonesian families, foreign criminal gangs, and the Turkish government have tried to influence American officials through campaign donations. 
Turkish government officials, the report notes, once bragged about sending hundreds of thousands of dollars in “un-itemized contributions” to then Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert’s campaign between 1996 and 2000 and the government of Pakistan has shuttled campaign donations through intermediaries to presidential candidates and members of Congress who sat on the Foreign Affairs Committee, such as Congressman Dan Burton.
With the internet, foreigners can now attempt to influence American officials anonymously and conveniently -- with the click of a mouse. 
According to the study, influential members of Congress had websites that made them vulnerable to illicit foreign donations. For instance, Rep. Ilena Ros-Lehtinen, Chairman of the House International Affairs Committee, had a campaign website that prior to May 1, 2012 did not require the CVV to contribute to her campaign. Though there was no evidence of illicit campaign contributions, her website was vulnerable to them. 
The study also found that during Sen. Marco Rubio's 2010 senate run, Rubio's campaign did not require the CVV from his online contributors and foreign websites, including many in South America, often featured videos that urged viewers to "donate" to Rubio's campaign. One potential reason for Rubio's popularity abroad on websites was the idea of "ethnic solidarity" among Hispanics willing to support a rising star of the same heritage. 
The report also noted foreigners can also donate to third-party organizations on both sides of the aisle that funnel money to political candidates.
The GAI study acknowledged “by design, social media’s expansive and viral nature disseminates information, ideas, and causes,” and as a result, “social media is difficult to control, and indeed should not be controlled.”
“Campaigns need to be aware that the age of social media is an age where donation requests go viral, reaching the furthest corners of the world,” the report notes. “Failure to employ industry standard security and transparent accountability is almost an invitation to foreign money to inject itself into federal campaigns.”
The United States has laws against foreign campaign donations to protect its sovereignty and, in January 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously upheld these laws banning foreign contributions were constitutional.
The GAI report recommends election officials: 
  • Integrate safeguards to limit the solicitation of money from foreigners by requiring donors with foreign IP addresses to provide proof of U.S. citizenship before they can proceed to the donate page 
  • Immediately require campaigns to use industry-standard anti-fraud security technologies including, but not limited to, the Card Verification Value (CVV) and a rigorous Address Verification System (AVS) 
  • Immediately require all campaigns to retain and disclose identifying information on all online campaign contributions, including those falling under the $200 nondisclosure threshold currently allowed under federal law 
  • Address the threat of "Robo-Donations": The absence of industry-standard anti-fraud credit card security features render campaigns more vulnerable to so-called “robo-donations.” Robo-donations are large numbers of small, automated donations made through the Internet to evade FEC reporting requirements. 
Schweizer, president of GAI, put a particular emphasis on the "robo-donations" that "can literally make a thousand small contributions under different names to fall below the disclosure thresholds." 
These "robo-donations" essentially allow foreigners to threaten America's sovereignty and potentially undermine its elections, which is why Schweizer said it is "absolutely essential" to mandate more disclosure and credit card security for campaign donations. 
Amazon.com uses more credit card security for online book purchases than many federal candidates accepting $2,000 campaign donations via credit card," Schweizer said. "To protect the integrity of U.S. elections, that must change."

Most Viewed This Week